 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / November 2005What a waste of money.
After rebranding all the AT&T Wireless stores as Cingular, the new at&t now gets to rebrand all the Cingular store at&t, and use the new Deathstar logo. Both AT&T and AT&T Wireless ran themselves into the ground, but SBC is taking the name, for itself and for Cingular. Perhaps it just wants to speed up the day when Verizon is again the largest cellular carrier in the U.S. >After rebranding all the AT&T Wireless stores as Cingular, the new at&t >now gets to rebrand all the Cingular store at&t, and use the new >Deathstar logo. >... While SBC is assuming the AT&T name, AT&T Wireless may refer only to wireless service sold by "the new AT&T" -- see "AT&T To Sell Branded Wireless" <http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA6285901.html> "This is not a surprise, because when the Cingular joint venture was created, we anticipated (our parents) might want to offer wireless services under their own brands," says Cingular Wireless spokesman Mark Siegel. Cingular is a joint venture of AT&T (formerly SBC) and BellSouth Corporation. Cingular acquired AT&T Wireless last year. "Mr. Whitacre's comments changes in no way how we will market Cingular. Our size and national presence is an advantage for our parents," Siegel says. [MORE] BellSouth could continue to use the Cingular name, or switch to its own branding.  SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> AS USUAL, NAVAS IS A DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT. His own link contains: In a Nov. 20 interview with USA Today, AT&T company chief executive Edward Whitacre said the company plans to sell wireless service mainly under the AT&T brand." and on Monday: " In one of SBC Communications Inc.'s first official acts as the new AT&T Inc., the nation's largest telecommunications company has decided to resurrect the AT&T Wireless brand. " http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2005/11/21/daily9.html Bell South as a minority holder of Cingular is going along for the ride. >AS USUAL, NAVAS IS A DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2005/11/21/daily9.html That's in fact what I said -- you need to read more carefully. >Bell South as a minority holder of Cingular is going along for the ride. That's not what it says. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > After rebranding all the AT&T Wireless stores as Cingular, the new at&t > now gets to rebrand all the Cingular store at&t, and use the new [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Perhaps it just wants to speed up the day when Verizon is again the > largest cellular carrier in the U.S. Considering the global holdings of the old AT&T, the new at&T stands to gain a much larger audience than they ever did as SBC. Couple those Euro and SA markets with a significant fiber network (both domestic and foreign), at&t could realize huge operating cost reductions long term. Have you seen the number of POPs AT&T had? Holy Long Distance Batman! Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> After rebranding all the AT&T Wireless stores as Cingular, the new at&t >> now gets to rebrand all the Cingular store at&t, and use the new [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >foreign), at&t could realize huge operating cost reductions long term. >Have you seen the number of POPs AT&T had? Holy Long Distance Batman! Yep -- this will almost certainly be a big boost for Cingular. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Just another whiner that needs to change providers... > Both AT&T and AT&T Wireless ran themselves into the ground, but SBC is > taking the name, for itself and for Cingular. Insults do not save the new at&t one penny thats being wasted. As a "Cingular" customer, I would prefer they spend their dollars more reasonably so you and I don't have to pay for the change back to at&t, wasting 5 years of brand awareness creation. > Insults do not save the new at&t one penny thats being wasted. > > As a "Cingular" customer, I would prefer they spend their > dollars more reasonably so you and I don't have to pay > for the change back to at&t, wasting 5 years of brand awareness In the view of Cingular, such a change will make them more money. AT&T used to have a very large chunk of the corporate cellular market. When they botched their GSM conversion, as even they admitted, they lost a lot of those customers. WNP came along at about the same time, and delivered the final blow. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/191742_attw21.html As this article states, if AT&T had chosen to move to CDMA, as they had originally planned, things would have turned out very different. See the section, "An unfortunate choice." One thing that the article fails to mention, is the $9.8 billion dollar investment by NTT Docomo, which forced AT&T over to GSM. >> Insults do not save the new at&t one penny thats being wasted. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >In the view of Cingular, such a change will make them more money. Correction: that's in the view of the new AT&T (formerly SBC), not Cingular. >AT&T >used to have a very large chunk of the corporate cellular market. When >they botched their GSM conversion, as even they admitted, they lost a >lot of those customers. Correction: The new AT&T still has a very large chunk of the corporate cellular market. >WNP came along at about the same time, and >delivered the final blow. Correction: The final blow was mismanagement of the business. >http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/191742_attw21.html > >As this article states, if AT&T had chosen to move to CDMA, as they had >originally planned, things would have turned out very different. Correction: The article doesn't state that. Correction: AT&T hadn't "originally planned to move to CDMA." >See the >section, "An unfortunate choice." One thing that the article fails to >mention, is the $9.8 billion dollar investment by NTT Docomo, which >forced AT&T over to GSM. Correction: AT&T made the decision to go GSM independently. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Correction: AT&T hadn't "originally planned to move to CDMA." Are you saying that AT&T hadn't planned on moving to CDMA? >> Correction: AT&T hadn't "originally planned to move to CDMA." > > Are you saying that AT&T hadn't planned on moving to CDMA? Originally AT&T had planned to move from TDMA to CDMA. However the investment from NTT Docomo came with conditions, specifically the requirement to deploy W-CDMA in a certain number of cities by a certain date. The reason that AT&T Wireless was going to move to CDMA was well known, before Lucent and AT&T Wireless were spun off, AT&T Wireless was going to use Lucent's CDMA devices. You can do a Google search and find all sorts of interesting articles about the subject, i.e.: "TIA committee rates AT&T CDMA wireless as best in class" "Lucent solidifies focus on CDMA" Of course the bottom line is that everything is moving to CDMA eventually, but now it's CDMA2000 versus W-CDMA, which still has a level of complication that wouldn't have been necessary if the market, rather than European governments, had been allowed to select the best technology. Read "http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1353050" >>> Correction: AT&T hadn't "originally planned to move to CDMA." >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > requirement to deploy W-CDMA in a certain number of cities by a certain > date. Oh but of course, it was all over the industry news rags that AT&T was looking at moving to W-CDMA with headlines like: "QUALCOMM Applauds AT&T Wireless' Selection of WCDMA for 3G" - Qualcomm "AT&T Wireless was all set to move to CDMA" - Lucent "TIA committee rates AT&T CDMA wireless as best in class" - Lucent I was just curious why John made the remark "AT&T hadn't "originally planned to move to CDMA." No doubt I misunderstood what he said..yeah, that's probably what it was. > I was just curious why John made the remark "AT&T hadn't "originally > planned to move to CDMA." Because AT&T originally planned to move to CDMA. >> I was just curious why John made the remark "AT&T hadn't "originally >> planned to move to CDMA." > > Because AT&T originally planned to move to CDMA. Unless I missed something in the syntax, it appeared John said the opposite. >>> I was just curious why John made the remark "AT&T hadn't "originally >>> planned to move to CDMA." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Unless I missed something in the syntax, it appeared John said the > opposite. Yes, that's the point. With that poster, most of time you can take what he says, and the opposite will in fact be true. >>>> Correction: AT&T hadn't "originally planned to move to CDMA." >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Oh but of course, it was all over the industry news rags that AT&T was >looking at moving to W-CDMA with headlines like: WCDMA (UMTS) is the GSM path (which led to the investment by DoCoMo, not vice versa), not the CDMA2000 path that Steven Scharf (aka SMS, self-proclaimed sfbacellexpert and cellacademician) has been claiming. >I was just curious why John made the remark "AT&T hadn't "originally >planned to move to CDMA." No doubt I misunderstood what he said..yeah, >that's probably what it was. You do seem to have an understanding problem. I've previously posted substantiation by Chief Technology Officer of ATTWS it chose the path from TDMA to GSM to UMTS (WCDMA), rather than the CDMA2000 path that Stephen claims, because it was the best technical solution for ATTWS. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > I've previously posted substantiation by Chief Technology Officer of ATTWS it > chose the path from TDMA to GSM to UMTS (WCDMA), rather than the CDMA2000 path > that Stephen claims, because it was the best technical solution for ATTWS. You also said that "AT&T hadn't "originally planned to move to CDMA" which in fact they DID consider. >> I've previously posted substantiation by Chief Technology Officer of ATTWS it >> chose the path from TDMA to GSM to UMTS (WCDMA), rather than the CDMA2000 path >> that Stephen claims, because it was the best technical solution for ATTWS. > >You also said that "AT&T hadn't "originally planned to move to CDMA" >which in fact they DID consider. You're confusing CDMA with WCDMA -- they are two different and incompatible things, notwithstanding the similarity in names: * CDMA = CDMA2000, which was considered, but rejected in favor of GSM. * WCDMA = UMTS, the 3G evolution from GSM, the path that was selected. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Short for wide-band CDMA (Code-Division Multiple Access), a 3G technology that increases data transmission rates in GSM systems by using the CDMA air interface instead of TDMA. WCDMA is based on CDMA and is the technology used in UMTS. WCDMA was adopted as a standard by the ITU under the name "IMT-2000 direct spread". >http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/191742_attw21.html > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >mention, is the $9.8 billion dollar investment by NTT Docomo, which >forced AT&T over to GSM. To quote Rod Nelson, Chief Technology Officer, AT&T Wireless, on the decision to go from TDMA to GSM: * GSM has almost double the capacity of TDMA - and with AMR codec software deployed, will quadruple TDMA capacity, making GSM voice capacity equal to or better than CDMA2000 * Single Antenna Interference Cancellation, in development, will provide an additional 60-100 percent increase in voice capacity. * EDGE software triples the data speeds of GPRS using the same spectrum and radio frequency. * UMTS provides additional capacity and quality-of-service mechanisms, and flexibility in managing resources between voice and data services. And more than triples the data speed of EDGE. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.